Why Jordan Peterson Is Actually Right About "What Is A Woman?"
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 07. 2024
- Destiny responds to the HodgeTwins segment on SOScast and explains the gotcha behind "What Is A Woman?"
Date: 21 Jun, 2024
ORIGINAL VIDEO
► • Epic Fail: Liberal Str...
▼Follow Destiny▼
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/bigscreen
►TWITTER - / theomniliberal
►DISCORD - discordapp.com/invite/destiny
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
►MERCH - shop.destiny.gg/
Check Out My Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/destiny
Buy My Merch: shop.destiny.gg/
00:00 Teasers / Intro
00:53 Trans segment on HodgeTwins (SKIP INTRO)
04:14 Words and their purpose
11:25 Shapiro and Crowder both slip up
20:09 Matt Walsh's expertise on trans issue
25:07 Jordan Peterson gave best answer
27:46 "What is a woman" is asking if you believe in trans ppl or not
36:07 What if Blaire White walks into a bar?
44:46 Richard Cooper is obsessed and creates fanfic of Destiny
48:46 Conservatives want Buck Angel in woman's bathrooms
49:27 Andrew Tate had the right idea too
#destiny
#politics
#debate
Sneako Gets Superman Punched | AE #11
►czcams.com/video/wpwm5eElvY4/video.html
you are so full of shite here dude holy crap, you are like Vaush pandering to a group of viewers.
it's not even subtle
22:18 but according to some studies something like 30% of gen z identifies as lgbtq so he might have been going of that
23:24 according to the data 30% of gen z identify as lgbtq so idk
@@IstandwithIsrael236 100% of Boro Park residents voted for support of Israel
Destiny argues like a tree, so he must be one, so make like a tree and F OFF
Destiny is banned from twitch for a “transphobic take” for years while Sneako has already been unbanned btw!
Pretty sure Destiny was banned for showing Nick Fuentes on stream who was already banned.
@@4c6f your timelime is wrong, he was banned 6 months prior to interacting with Fuentes and taking his audience from him.
Yes we should bring Destiny back! However that would put him in danger of getting banned again. He would be a target of the Hassan Piker cult, the Demins mafia, and the KaceyTron cartel
its probably because destiny isnt actively appealing whereas sneako did.
The only woman who stayed banned is Destiny
A woman is someone whose name starts with a D and ends with a Y.
Dorothy?
And rhymes with restiny
Daisy?
Dory?
@@dr.d3011 Actually it rhymes with Zestiny
Jordan Peterson was like 1.5% of this video lol
Yeah, August is clickbaiting hard.
@@sathrielsatanson666 he is just doing his job
@@MotiMota15 I thought August was a woman's name.
The JP spirit was definitely strong here though xD
It’s hard for him to talk a lot about someone he agrees with. The rest is him sifting through garbage.
This "words don't have meanings" charade is tiresome. It's been accepted for WELL over 30 years that a "woman" is a featherless biped.
That's a man. Women are actually defective men according to Aristotle because they can't even produce seed and are merely a vessel for life creation. Virgin modern semantics vs based ancient empiricism.
Im currently plucking a chicken
Or a woman? @@JamieD1233
The entire mammalian kingdom is sexually dimorphic. Just because some male ape comes along and makes a noise like “I’m a woman” doesn’t actually mean anything other than apes make noises in real time.
Keep that same eregy when someone uses the "R or N word", or makes a transphobic joke like our fellow woman Destiny here.
All of the sudden those "words" have very solid grounded non nuanced meanings, but the ones that make out the lefties to look like delusional "R-word" are magically complex to hard to define mysterious terms for the unintelligent masses.
Woman here, I am a destiny.
name drop??!?!!?!??!
fascts
Perfect answer. Anything else you wanna answer to?
That sounds about right.
Hi woman, I'm destiny
“All you have to do is cross the Mexican border, and it’s Aqua”
- Vaush
"All I have to do is remove Adult and Human, then it's tautological" -Destiny
El Vaush strikes again
@@Mant111and replace female with woman! Conservatives destroyed with facts and logic.
@Mant111 yeah if you removed the parts that don't give us meaningful information sure.
Bro 100% destiny sounded just like Vaush at 28:00
Imagine asking Destiny to put something on the table. He wouldn't know what to do, since most things could be used as a table.
You can leave this comment under most Jordan Peterson videos too.
And both are right in being specific about words, when it's necessary. Though I do think that Destiny is being disingenuous here about some stuff to avoid giving people, he dislikes credit.
I think a destiny would assume what a table is based on the appearance and association. That’s probably how gender works as well.
I'm pretty sure I've heard Ben Shapiro say that in private he uses preferred pronouns, but in public he has to use biological pronouns because otherwise people try to use it to invalidate all his other trans-related political stances for example that biological men shouldn't be able to compete against biological women in segregated sports leagues. If you want an infallible answer to what a woman is where people don't retort with "well actually some women don't have-" it's just a human with large gametes. There's no female creature on the planet that doesn't have large gametes relative to male creatures who have small gametes.
Tf is a biological pronoun lol
@cayladodd9216 Your original pronouns based off your biological sex.
*I don't think Destiny was making a good point here* I think some people use the preferred pronouns, of people in the media, and then say the biological sex to correct themselves, because they've heard that person be referred to as their non biological sex, so many times, so it's stuck in their head.
*It would be like if the whole media kept referring to a famous transgender Crocodile as she* when it was in fact male, the same people would slip up, and call it she, not because they think the crocodile actually looks or exhibits as a female in anyway, but just because the way so many other people refer to the crocodile has got stuck in their head.
@@Light-lp8rn As a staunch anti LGBTQ I have preferred pronouns but do I force people to call me by them or legislate for it? No I do not cause THE WORLD DOES NOT OWE ME UNDERSTANDING nor should people be canceled and or banned or fired cause a cis man called another cis man at work a girl's name or a cis woman called another cis woman butch etc. Hell when is cis on cis language policing ever been a thing? At work an older man called me a girl cause I have no bicep muscle and he has instead of getting butthurt about it I laugheed and started doing pushups daily now I can do 100 a day
@@Kyotosomo Pronouns are social no matter what you base them on, there's no such thing as "biological pronouns". That would be like if i called you fat and stupid it wouldn't be a "biological insult", just because being fat and stupid has to do with your biology. You could say it's an insult about your biology, but calling it a "biological insult" is nonsense. That's not how the word "biological" is used.
Destiny: I want to have a conversation with an intelligent person
Also Destiny: *shows up on Hodge Twins*
That’s more of a publicity move
Destiny can’t define women tho 😂
@@UltraEgoMc Well he has. As he did on the podcast
I actually respect that. It may seem crazy to you, but people on that side of Politics are just as firm in their beliefs/ ideology as you are in yours. So cross-over matters because in those situations only the truly intelligent position can win the majority. Of course, there will always be the minority that won't care about reason.
Trust me, you wouldn’t be any better ❤
Destiny tries to rationalize his way out of having a girls name
LMAO
But isn’t Betty a woman’s name
@@Womp084 black queen name
Male and female are reproductive strategies. Everything past that is a secondary trait to accomplish the main reproductive goal.
@@bhf39Chosen one!!! 😂😂😂😂😂
destiny: what is a woman = Jordan peterson: do you believe in god
True XD
lol
LITERALLY
The transes are changing language but also all athiests believe in God and all art vibes from god
lmao
Society didn't see chromosomes a thousand years ago, but they say penises, vaginas, breast, birth, differences in physical strength, periods, ect. Things that they associated with man or women, male or female.
Over 1000s of years more and more stuff got built on.
Why don't you wear dresses now when the men in the past did?
Why don't you wear make up and heels when men used to do it?
Aren't you further away from them from the original source?
@@Jay-kx4jf They didn't.
@@Jay-kx4jf Did those things change the man or woman? Did men stop being men once they used dresses of makeup? Did women change as a group once they became housekeepers? This Talk about social cues doesnt Matter because through history men werent treated like women or women like men just because they changed what they socially did. The natural groups of man or woman have Never been mixed. In fact, when you use the fact that men used makeup you are reinforcing the basic classification that men, people born with a penis, used makeup in a point of time.
Through all of human history, you could and can see sex. The social characteristics of men and women have changed, but the natural group of men and women have never changed.
Yes, but there have always been people who are much more ambiguous for human comfort. Men who have fat deposits and dispositions that are are typically feminine and vice versa. Even before hormones and surgery, there is something very different going on. Take a brain scan and the brain has the appearance of the gender the person identifies with. It's clearly not just chromosomal sex that creates a man or a woman. It doesn't even guarantee a male or female.
@@-Skratch- It was quite common in the past for male nobles to wear makeup during court appearances.
This whole video is just Destiny denying that he's a strong black woman.
😭
These kinds of comments were banned sir.
@@Levi_OP um, you're chinese
And also a high value woman at that too.
Lol, smh.
If you take her over the border of Mexico she becomes Senora..
Destiny literally made the faush argument with water, where “water” didn’t exist until we named it water. Just because something doesn’t have the same name or a name in general doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, male and female exist regardless of whatever you want to call it
That doesnt change how we use language. Things exist in the world without humans but the categories we give them through our definitions is simply based on the way we use language to convey concepts to each other.
Whatever we call "water" existed before but "water" also refers to a lot of different things, including "h20" which is what most people think the definition is.
We just came up with this category called "water" though for all these clear liquids with a certain range of taste, usually tasteless, etc. etc.
@@senatordodo4240 This is true, but trans activists would need provide their alternative (non-circular) definition for the category of "woman" so that everyone knows what they're referring to when they use that word. They still haven't done that yet.
@@senatordodo4240 The natural world orders itself along categories that we discover. The language itself is arbitrary, the content being communicated is not. My cat has a developed understanding of the category of "dogs". Trees prioritize relatives for nutrient sharing. Water is not an abstracted idea, it is _the_ tie that binds all living things on Earth. You can do all the philosophical navel gazing you want, but that's all it is. Which is fine if that's what you want to do, it can be entertaining, but in reality these things are so self-evident they literally don't even require sentience to recognize
Male Dogs actually can detect a female especially in heat. Scent is a lot of it. Yes horny dogs will hump your leg just like we will masturbate. Chimps masturbate too, they also have displayed a remarkable ability to distinguish females in the group. It’s not just dumb luck like they run around sticking it in everything and sometimes get lucky. lol.
Damn, Destiny. I’m a big fan but you’re getting overwhelmed here.
Adult human female is not just a meaningless tautology. It’s telling us it ain’t a child and it ain’t a male and it ain’t a cow. lol. Jesus.
We say things like you act like a child and you run like a child and you cry like a baby. Does this mean the fundamental definition of what child is and how it differs from adult is too difficult to answer? I guess we can’t actually answer that question .
@@NocturnalNick very nice
"Marry one and find out"
This is fallacious. You can't know who you're marrying is a woman without knowing what a woman is
A woman is someone who makes good sandwiches
Based
You're godamn right that's why I make the best sandwiches
@@shmoo42 🥪😍
@@shmoo42 make me one, shorty
No lies here.
15:30 As destiny becomes more frustrated with the content he's reacting to, he starts sounding more and more sarcastic when thanking donors in chat
It's probably just a hassle to say thank you all the time. I'd hate it.
@@whatoh3407bro if u get paid by each one u wouldn't hate it
All they need to do is ask what is a biological women, that's literally it.
oak trees exist. And maple trees are something different. If you decided that oak trees can be maple trees if you paint the leaves, that doesn’t change the fact that they’re oak trees.
That’s the point.
Your point is demonstrates that the precision of your definition depends on the relevance of the differences. The whole Trans argument is that outside of some narrow contexts, biological sex is not very relevant, and that carving out exceptions for those contexts doesn’t cause untenable amounts of confusion. Your reductionism to formal definitions is not doable for most words in the English language (and, if linguists and philosophy/historians of language are to be trusted about why natural languages are like that, then this is a netadvantage for the language.
@@pookz3067 So does that mean you think that the Trans argument holds water? To use a colloquialism that I hope you understand.
"what is a destiny?"
Well, it depends what you mean by a 'destiny'.
A girls name
@@HighFlyinBird90won't matter. He won't answer
A black human female
@@a.b.coatingnah he'll answer, he'll just destroy the basis for his own political positions and not even realize it.
I'm starting to lose the thread here... is Destiny a woman's name or not?
yes
Just asked my sassy black friend. She said yes.
Undoubtedly
What is a woman's name?
@@doooofusWhat is a woman?
It all comes back around.
I genuinely don't understand this. Our perceptions don't make someone a man or a woman. If I dress up as a woman, I might look like a woman and people might accidentally call me a woman, but I'm not a woman, right?
I will still be nice enough to call someone who likes a woman a she or a her, but at the end, she's not a woman.
I think the best way to understand this, is to genuinely ask yourself socratically,
"What is a chair?"
Without the social dancing, just by yourself, curiously.
You'll likely not reach a conclusion. But you'll gain the insight that helps this understanding
Or if you're lazy watch a cogsci lecture series.
That's the distinction between sex and gender.
But it kinda does. If every single person in the world looked at someone, and agreed that they are a woman, then why wouldn't they be a woman. The exact meaning of words in a public setting is decided by how people use that word.
@@Jay-kx4jf or not, because it isn't that complicated
The category "women" would just come to include that person and people who are similar.
If 5 people get into a giraffe costume that's so real looking people think they're actually a giraffe, is it a giraffe or just 5 people in a costume?
U sure gottem champ 🏆
@@gaat_chris4960 I mean it makes sense. Things appearing different from what they are doesn't change the essence of what the thing is, only that you're not perceiving it correctly. We put way too much emphasis on changing definitions entirely rather simply adding extra information. Instead of saying "a trans woman is a woman" we could just say "a trans woman is a man, but due to social convenience and empathy for their condition we can refer to them as women when appropriate."
to the people who see it they're going to categorize it as a giraffe, yes. If it's *that* realistic then the difference is functionally meaningless. You could go "well akshually" to them and explain how this giraffe is composed, but you know the saying.. if it walks like a giraffe, and talks like a giraffe.. then it doesnt matter if it's actually 5 people inside to any observer.
@@viysnjor4811 yeah but you are wrong, you just don't know it. Essentially the question is whether there's an inherent truth that exists outside of your perception
@@DynamicDandalf well no, the question is what do *people* mean when they use language for everyday social interactions. We're not talking about writing textbooks or filling factoid blurbs.
I feel a bit like we're confusing two things, one how we use language, and what a thing actually are.
Except here, most of what we care about what the thing "actually is" is directly tied to how we use language.
Destiny is saying you should just come out and say you don't think trans people should be treated as women. That's an arguable position, and you should argue it if you believe that, rather than hiding behind ambiguous language.
Except we don’t really know, what most of things actually are, on a fundamental level. Whatever you try to describe, might change the next day, based on our deeper understanding of the field in question.
It really is a language question, not scientifical one.
@@jeffwells641 "Except here, most of what we care about what the thing "actually is" is directly tied to how we use language."
That's not true. The shorthand is a crude but necessary substitution for knowledge of the thing in itself. We cannot exist in a world where we need to constantly test our perceptions against reality, so the shorthand is substituted for knowledge of the things we perceive. In MOST social situations, the shorthand is substituted FOR PRACTICAL REASONS, but in principle the actual truth of the matter trumps the pragmatic shorthand.
Want proof? Ask every lesbian who's confused a man for a butch woman about how her attraction suddenly vanishes when she learns the truth.
@@doomhand6360 yes it will probably always be a language question, but wouldn't we want it to refer to something that is as close as possible to the fundamental level? and I kind of feel like that's what people are asking about
continental philosophists will argue they are the same thing
If someone disguises a cat well enough as a dog without my knowledge, and I then see this "dog" and describe it as a dog to a third party, I am going off of all of the signifiers that led me to identify it as a dog and I am attempting to convey the idea that what I observed was a dog to a third party, all without doing hard scientific analysis that would confirm what I've actually seen. All I'm communicating to the third party is that I observed all the commonly held signifiers of "dogness" in this entity I have described as a dog.
That cat is still not a dog.
Just because you wear a really good costume, doesn't mean you intrinsically are the thing you costume yourself as.
This is transphobic
Can you do this with the word pet instead of dog?
I think it's good to be against transphobia
@@kangaroomax8198 I'm genuinely curious, why not? Is your sense of self beforehand any more "yourself" than the costume you put on?
Destiny: I want to have a conversation with an intelligent person
Also Destiny: asks chat what a tree is
Destiny married twice and still dosnt know what a woman is
"Two time divorce champion" lol
@@Hadoichi Divorstiny
Hates destiny but watches all his videos 😭
Shouldn’t the word be “evoke” not “invoke”? Evoke is external and invoke is internal so if it’s in someone else’s mind then it would be evoke?
I don't think "Evoke is external and invoke is internal" is necessarily true. I don't think "evoke" is wrong here. Actually, I think it fits as well or better than "invoke" for this usage (conjuring an image in someone's mind). But googling "evoke vs invoke" doesn't yield results relating to this "external/internal" distinction, and I've not personally heard the words used that way.
That’s not a correct definition. But yes, it should be “evoke” when referencing bringing an image, thought, or feeling into your own mind or someone else’s mind. “Invoke” is used when someone calls upon something specific, often by name. Like a person, a book, a citation, etc.
🤓☝️
@@connorp3030 begone. The entire video is about the nuances of language.
@@connorp3030 bro why are you here?
Destiny definitely knows what is a woman
Destiny's right that there COULD be a valid alternative definition of "woman" based on social characteristics. The problem is trans activists always retreat from that definition back to the self-ID definition, which is circular and therefore meaningless.
That actually is a fundamental problem with trans ideology, considering literally the whole point of language is to convey meaning.
Not familiar with trans ideology, but how do you personally define a man or woman? Do you think it's something we just intuit or do you think there's like a hard set of defining characteristics? (biologically, socially, etc)
We use social and physical characteristics to determine whether someone is a man or a woman every single day. The chromosomal definition doesn't work because if you look into how chromosomes work, you'd understand that it's extremely complex. You might have XY chromosomes, but you then present as a female phenotypically. For instance, an experiment was done in 1953 where a scientist removed the gonads on rabbit fetuses and, regardless of whether they had the XX or XY chromosome, they all presented with the female phenotype. That means that they all had a vagina and a uterus.
@adlernelson285 No one with an understanding of biology defines sex by chromosomes.
It's based on which of the (2) reproductive systems an organism has.
@@adlernelson285You could use a gamete definition: A man is an adult human male. Further, a male is someone who, after puberty, would normally have the reproductive anatomy that would produce small gametes.
@johnny4062 But these people don't want a definition that covers things most of the time; they want one that covers every possible situation. If a definition only applies some of the time, but not all, then there must be exceptions. Which is what a trans person is. I have no problem defining a man or woman as generally having XX or XY chromosomes, as well as generally presenting with a male or female phenotype, because then we could still have exceptions on the fringes. That's generally how biology works because nature does not care for categories. That is why a platypus is a mammal. That's why we don't really have an exact moment for when a certain species of ape became a different species of ape that we would call human.
It's infuriating when the same people who say "be a man" refuse to understand that gender is a social construct.
gender is a social construct but understand that it is inextricably linked and derived from biologically ingrained nature. A man may be effeminate but is still a male. A woman may show masculine qualities but is still a female. You may feel you are B but you will always be A.
It's infuriating that activists pretend metaphorical, idiomatic, pragmatic, inferential, and formal usage are required to be the same.
Ben Shapiro explained that he would use the pronouns they identify as to be respectful. But if he's talking scientifically, he has no problem saying male or female. He explains this in that episode.
but nobody is talking about male and female. gender presentation is a different thing
Then why does he keep "correcting himself." If he has no problem personally calling them their preferred pronouns why does he act like it's a mistake whenever he does so.
@@hardphlexit’s a different thing until you start whipping out “trans women are women” then it’s not.
What people are isn't determined by male or female, because the social signifiers and behaviors are clearly the things that we look for and base it on, as evidenced by the clips. People intuitively make judgement calls based on those things, not genitals, reproductive organs, or chromosomes.
Science doesn't prescribe pronouns though.
A woman is a female human. Have we really fallen this far?
Mind you Destiny is still expecting us take him seriously.
If i walk down the street and see a human with specific features, traits and characteristics, im going to say "hey, look at that woman over there" despite not being able to see their genitalia or their chromosomes. How do i know that its a "woman" without knowing that its an "adult human female"?
@@senatordodo4240 the fact that it is possible to misidentify something because of limited information doesn’t mean that the thing itself is changed or the category has a new definition. You’re observing aesthetic characteristics of a clothed person, which can be fairly accurate at deducing their gender, but far less so than maybe a whole physical evaluation or genetic testing would be. Your accuracy might not really matter on a normal interaction with a stranger, but it would be more important based on the relationship. Presenting as a woman in public might be different from being one in private, which is the difference between needing to clarify further than “woman” to a random on the streets and to a straight guy you’d like to date or hook up with. There are different levels to “passing” but ultimately trans women are going to have to clarify things that contradict what is simply assumed of women
Are female kids women?
@@asargentb they're girls who will grow up to be women. But you know that. This is not a legitimate debate. Even Destiny is pulling a Vanish here and acting like he's retarded on this issue. He's not.
Woman = adult human female is not circular unless you are saying that there is the same ambiguity around the word female as there now seems to be around the word woman. Otherwise it is a descriptive definition that you can use to tie woman to something concrete, which seems so hard for many to do.
There is the same ambiguity though. At least you see 'women' as ambiguous at all, which is a notion that 'what is a women' is trying to deny
@@jamrollz There's literally zero ambiguity, unless you're claiming that you don't know what the word "female" refers to.
How have we gotten so smart and yet so stupid at the same time. It’s just hilarious that this is what people are talking about today.
What is an “adult”? And how am i to tell if they are female?
The circle will go unbroken
@@michaeltaberner4079 You technically can't tell if someone is a female, you just guess.
An adult by law is someone who is 18.
I'm not sure where the circle is.
The "XX Chromosome Human Mammal" comment instantly derailed his whole spiel lmfao.
So according to Destiny, the definition of a woman would be someone who presents as an adult human female, since the word is actually used to describe what we perceive rather than what is objectively true. If that’s the case, wouldn’t only passing trans people count as trans? So even if we grant the argument, it still doesn’t justify the conclusion that as long as someone identifies as a woman then they actually are a woman.
the whole conversation about the concept of a tree was truly next level regardation well done
Destiny is confused here. Words can change meaning. So we can make any word mean anything. But that doesnt mean the phenomenon behind the meaning changes.
I think you are confused here.
Literally nobody argued about phenomenon changing. Everyone is in agreement about the facts of the matter, the question is, what the word "woman" refers to.
Smugly saying it's simply "adult human female" is nothing short of intellectual capitulation.
"words can change meaning" so why don't you think the meaning of the word "woman" can change?
@@skylerblumenthal7003 100 years ago if two powerful men sat down and said
"I have a daughter, you have a son lets combine our families and stop this conflict between them"
could the man be referring to anything but daughter as a description of a biological woman? could the man be referring to anything but son as a description of a biological man?
the point of language is to make communication possible. but what is being communicated by calling a biological woman a man? are different rights being invoked?
@@jasonu3741this is a pointless thing to bring up. It doesn't have to be 100 years ago, if someone today refers to their daughter, mother, sister, wife, etc. then 99+% of the time we know they mean they are referring to a cis female, because the reality is that trans and intersex people are a tiny minority of the population.
The debate is not around what the most common understanding of a woman is, it's about the edge cases. This is like trying to debate the exact medical definition of when death occurs and using what some person means when they say their dad died as the the definition, while also ignoring the fact that 100+ years ago, the less sophisticated understanding of death meant people were sometimes buried alive.
Words do have meaning but if you genuinely believe every word is as clear-cut as the concept of “1”, you’ve been too lazy or uninterested to think about language your entire life. Which, as Destiny has pointed out, is fair, but you shouldn’t ask philosophical questions then.
Most words aren’t physically exact; most words aren’t chemically exact; most words aren’t biologically exact.
Do you think languages with grammatical gender use that gender to describe sex? Then never sit down on a German chair if you’re straight - because he’s masculine.
Did Destiny actually give his definition of woman? He yapped about it for an hour but never said what his definition is, only why he thinks adult human female is wrong.
what is a strawberry?
-aw shit man let me explain you the concept of language
Seriously this was such an L video from Destiny Im afraid 💀
Well if the argument was about literal classification of berries then the language is suddenly fucking important isn't it? It's laymen asking a complicated question without realising it. Thinking about "female" and asking about "woman" as if they are the same. You can think they are, but then you aren't actually asking the question. It's just supposed do be a dunk because "me understand easy answer good"
it's a type of vegetable, you see everyone in my social circle says its a vegetable so it is, what it really is outside of my social construct of a social circle doesn't matter you see.
P.S. if anyone takes this comment seriously we all know you don't want a white house but a RAINBOW HOUSE
A strawberry is that red fruit we like to eat, plus the single floating oxygen molecule at the 75th angle from the center. Period. Anyone who disagrees with this definition is a moron because I say so.
the joke is on you, you probably think its a fruit, but by botanic definition it isnt.
So if I accidentally refer to a fake diamond as a "diamond," it's real?
Or a counterfeit bill is real if I make it look convincing enough?
L Tiny
It doesnt make the fake diamond real, it does mean that what we think of when we say "diamond" isnt so cookie cutter
@@senatordodo4240No it fucking doesn’t, diamond has a strict elemental makeup that can be observed and defined as a diamond. Same as chromosomes in a woman.
If I wear blackface then I’m black apparently.
@@senatordodo4240 How does it broaden what a "diamond" is? It just means you can make something look like a diamond. This is a non-sequitur.
@@stakahz4513 It doesnt change what the diamond itself is or what we define as a diamond, we use language differently than the literal atomic makeup of a thing though so that even things that are technically not a diamond are often referred to as "diamonds".
Destiny never said "trans women are women"
99% of people disagreeing are conflating his argument with "trans women are women" discourse which he never said explicitly disagrees with
There’s women and then there’s transwomen. It’s completaly unarguable. The distinction is pretty clear. Anything other than that is beating around the bush regardless of what you feel to be true yourself.
I agree in the sense that trans women are women but not all women are trans women.
@@idontgetthejoke4813 yeah but there’s a reason there has to be a distinction between them. Let’s say i wanna go on a date and a friend says he’s found a potential woman for me, and then i meet up and it turns out she has a d*ck 😳 I mean c’mon, you could have said she was a transwoman, you know what i mean?
If the difference is so obvious and unarguable, you would be fine with letting the adult human female who goes by the name of Buck Angel to be alone with your daughter in a restroom, right? The distinction is pretty clear, after all.
@@TheElitedeath huh? That’s exactly what i’m indirectly saying tho lmao😂 That’s the reason transwomen should be called transwomen and not women. And also should not be able to share restrooms with women. You misunderstood everything i said lol, or am i missing something? Seems like you’re just arguing for my argument
@@TheElitedeathThis reminds me of when Blair white was kicked out of the men's bathroom because she made the male customers uncomfortable lol.
Nah even if I mistake a trans persons sex doesn’t mean they are that sex.
So you do think Ben mistook her sex in that video in which he was continuously talking about her being trans? That’s ridiculous.
@@MensHominis I believe he continuously misspoke. That's an option. No matter how many times I call a tortoise a turtle it's still a tortoise. I'm just wrong/misspeaking.
@MensHominis you realise saying a word doesn't make it objective reality? I can say a blue blanket is green every day for the rest of my life. Does it make it green?
@@MensHominis *"So you do think Ben mistook her sex in that video in which he was continuously talking about her being trans? That’s ridiculous."*
- I dont think that's ridiculous. He even corrected himself a few times.
- Ben has also stated that he refers to people how they want to be referred to in his personal life [indulges their delusions] out of politeness, so it wouldnt be unreasonable for him to make this mistake.
Human Female = Human with XX Chromosomes.
Woman = Adult Human Female.
She/Her = Pronouns used to describe Women.
@@user-ui5bo5um7n No, you can’t mistake a sex if you already know it. Except if you want to claim Benniboy has dementia. It was her social role, her gender, that was constantly overwriting his teeth-grinding attempt at artificially referring only to her biological sex. _That’s_ why he kept correcting himself. That’s also what he has said about using chosen pronouns: you’re wrong, at least to Blaire White he admitted that it would be _impractical_ to refer to a female-looking person in public as “him”. Then, too, he gave in to social utility because of a social role. He didn’t indulge trans folks’ wishes.
Destiny is a womans name.
Destiny is a woman.
Socrates: Yes.
Not all women are Destiny but all Destiny is woman
It perplexes me that Steven is so muddle-headed on this topic. Language can be complicated, yes, but the things that the words "man" and "woman" were created to refer to are not. The answer to "what is a woman", as a statement of fact, is not complicated.
A woman is an an adult human female. A human is a species of primate. An adult is (at minimum) a member of a species that can reproduce. And a female is any member of a species whose biology is organised around the reproductive strategy that utilises large gametes.
Whenever we use "woman" in any other context we are engaging in figurative and creative use of language, not statements of fact. I would have thought that Steven, of all people, would unerstand this.
Thank you
What a way to miss the point...
You just say "men" and "woman" mean "adult human male/female" and declare victory.
The whole fucking point is, that we simply do not use language like that and your post-hoc definition doesn't change that.
The definitions of words come AFTER a word is being used. If we all collective decide that a woman is everyone with long hair, then this is what a woman is.
A definition has no truth value.
The only thing we can use to determine the definition of a word is to observe it's real world usage and the concepts that are being invoked.
The idea that words were created with a factual definition in mind and that any change of the meaning is now wrong or just "creative use of language", betrays a very childish understanding of language.
Languages change, definitions change and the concepts in people's minds change. I'm sorry that I had to be the one to tell you, but you have to deal with that knowledge now.
@@maxwellsdemon10 "What a way to miss the point" -- The irony is painful.
@@onepartyroule oh please tell me, how did I miss your point. I'm actually curious.
@@maxwellsdemon10 If any person or people want to redefine a word it is incombant upon them to justify it. It is deceptive and unreasonable to require people to start using a word or term (particularly one that has profound implications for truth statements and peoples lived experiences) in ways that obfuscate rather than clarify.
To appropriate a word used to refer to a specific sex (in its literal application) for another sex is doing just that, and obviously has profound implications, in this case, specifically for females.
If people were simply advocating for new terms for males who want to pretend theyre female or females who want to pretend theyre male ( transwoman/trans-woman and transman/trans-man, for instance) it would be a different conversation, but that is nt what people are doing.
The thing is, for the majority of the people nothing of this matters, having any trouble defining a woman or saying its complicated makes you look like an insane person.
The thing is, the majority of people are dumbfucks that dont want to spend extra brain power thinking a little deeper into subjects (or just pretend they do), that doesnt mean those deeper ideas are wrong or shouldnt be used
No. You're just too stupid to want to engage in the nuance of language lol
Chatter: "You can still say a woman is xx chromosomes and admit that appearance can deceieve somone."
Destiny: "Just admit you think trans people aren't real and should not have access to any healthcare"
Now I see where vaush came from.
He's such a slimeball isn't he
but that is the point they were making was it not? If they believe trans people are real then they already agree with destiny, the issue is that people don't think trans people are real.
"Just admit you think trans ppl aren't real,and don't deserve healthcare..."
I'd have so much more respect for Destiny, if he just removed the words "you think" from that sentence...
But the idea that (chemically OR surgically) mutilating 100% healthy body parts, using ZERO evidence-based diagnostic criteria, is somehow "healthcare" (ONLY in this one case, but no other) is utterly bizarre.
@@LiiRAE. What do you mean by 'real' in this case? Also just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the replication crisis in psychology?
@@LiiRAE.
*" the issue is that people don't think trans people are real."*
- Asking 'are trans people real' makes you sound stupid. They're real human beings that hold a belief about themselves that is incorrect.
So why aren’t we having this conversation about literally EVERYTHING? Why can’t people change their race based on perception? Sorry, not buying it. It’s just not that complicated.
Because it isn’t a biological thing. The reason why people discuss transgender people is because they exist, therefore there needs to be a social structure where they can exist comfortably. There’s nothing to “buy.”
People literally change ethnicity. Some of the Tutsis in Rwanda would change their ethnicity to receive benefits from the state and gain power
You are speaking philosophically. The people your are speaking to are not. Male and female are the labels we created but we didn't create male and female. If we now say that the word female includes trans women it would just mean we no longer have a word for humans we currently refer to as female. It doesn't change the physical reality. Male and female exist outside of language. Humans, like other animals, are skilled at recognizing the opposite sex.
...also, I work at a hospital and am quite familiar with, and friendly with the staff. There are two things that are happening when a Trans patient arrives for treatment; what most who argue the "medical premise" might not be privy to is, 1.) All staff are notified ahead of time behind closed doors that such a patient is present in the facility, and 2.) many special exceptions are made for the patient to make them comfortable enough to receive care (similar to a psych patient), because that's the priority.
If for one second there's a misconception that the nurses, paramedics, doctors, receptionists and psych staff actually believe, or buy-into these new-age concepts about sex and gender, you'd be mistaken! That's corporate courtesy stuff, no different than an employee saying "my pleasure" when working at Chik-Fil-A! 🤷♀
Isn't his entire argument an appeal to complexity fallacy? "An apple is a sandwich." _That's a categorical error, here are the properties of an apple, and here are the properties of the sandwich category._ "Language is complex, it's always evolving, words can mean anything because they're a social construct. Therefore you cannot refute that an apple is a sandwich." Notice that when people argue like this they always pick something that is very similar, which men and women are not. They always argue "is a hamburger a sandwich?" but never "is a pick up truck a sandwich?" even though if complexity is the only issue, a pickup truck COULD be a sandwich if everyone decided there was a definition of sandwich that included 4 wheeled vehicles with open cargo areas on the back.
But to make matters worse, when people say "A T woman IS a woman" they're actually conceding there is this category of 'woman' that we all generally accept, in fact we put people into it every day, even progressives will just use it in a normal way without thinking. So they're not creating a completely different category for T women and biological females, they're just saying T women belong in the same group -- which is a category error.
Furthermore, isn't "Just argue that T people don't exist" a straw man fallacy? I don't actually agree that people with gender dysphoria don't exist. I'm disputing your categorization, in the same way that I still believe apples exist, I'm simply disputing that they're sandwiches. This is why the question "What is a sandwich?" would be such a powerful question, if you believe an apple, or a truck, or a horse can be a sandwich, then your definition of sandwich basically becomes "The definition of sandwich is whatever I identify as a sandwich" which is circular, or at least meaningless -- and what are words without meaning?
I... literally could say it better myself lol. Summarized perfectly. 👍
@@samanthasmith733 You literally "could" say it better yourself? How fcking dare you. 😉
This is a topic Destiny simply cannot win. Not because hes bad a debating but because he is defending the indefensible.
okay so what is your definition of a woman? What part of that definition applies ONLY to biological woman which doesn't exclude rare cases?
"I don't actually agree that people with gender dysphoria don't exist. I'm disputing your categorization" if you want to do this, agree that people with gender dysphoria exist and truly understand that, yet still refuse to call them a female/woman after they have gone through transitioning. Then you are just a shitty human, you are ignoring the many studies and scientific/psychological research indicating that it improves their quality of life. Just because you want to maintain some strict abstract "definition" despite the fact that absolutely nobody else in day to day life uses words with that precise of language.
""... Notice that when people argue like this they always pick something that is very similar, which men and women are not" you are right. Men and woman are not very similar, which is why someone who transitions is more aligned and is more similar to the sex they have transitioned into. At this point what is stopping you from just calling them a woman or a man?
" but never "is a pick up truck a sandwich?"" I truly believe when you say things like this you are just intentionally obfuscating the language you use and the examples you pick. A man is not an orange and a woman is not a kangaroo. But man and woman are "humans" so comparing the differences/similarities makes a lot more sense.
", a pickup truck COULD be a sandwich if everyone decided there was a definition of sandwich that included 4 wheeled vehicles with open cargo areas on the back." yes that is how language works. If in 100 years pickup trucks are called sandwiches then a pickup truck according to our understanding is a sandwich. Words are only assigned meaning by how humans use them. There is no magical definition that sticks to a word/object and forces that thing to be defined as that forever.
""What is a sandwich?" would be such a powerful question, if you believe an apple, or a truck, or a horse can be a sandwich, then your definition of sandwich basically becomes "The definition of sandwich is whatever I identify as a sandwich" which is circular,or at least meaningless -- and what are words without meaning?" it's not what an individual thinks, it's what society thinks. Even you would agree despite arguing all of this that there is no definition of a woman which can include 100% of biologically born woman. So why so confidently refute that a trans woman can be a woman? What is the one part of the definition that changes the distinction? You are right that words are meaningless with meaning. Which is exactly why words are so weird. Throughout life when we see someone and decide to call them she or he, we decide based on characteristics that are not hard written down. If you see someone who looks like a woman you are going to call them a woman, if you then find out that they were born a man would you start calling them a man despite how they act, look etc all aligning more with how you view woman? " So they're not creating a completely different category for T women and biological females, they're just saying T women belong in the same group -- which is a category error." because as a society we do not have categories like this for gendering people. We (at least in english) use worlds like she,he,they when talking about people. There is no word to describe a trans she, it is just "she"
@@noahfletcher3019 It is a wild hill to die on, considering his position on males in female sports. If we accept that the definition of woman now includes T women, then his objection boils down to "women should not be allowed in women's sports." Which is asinine. You would have to first change from "Women's sports" to "Female sports" and then make your objection, which hasn't happened.
Also, he is bad at debating. He's a smart guy , which I think is what you meant to imply, but he often starts off with a position that he wants to be true and then tries to find arguments to fit that. When this fails he'll just spiral and start acting like his opponents are simply too st-pid to grapple with his brilliance. Reminds me of many religious people. Because centuries of philosophical arguments are baked into religion they can often stand on their own two feet for a lot of arguments, but then if you start to pin them down on something specific to their religion they will just spiral because they NEED the religion to be true. I don't NEED any of this to be true. If someone could prove to me that T women ARE women then I would accept that and move on. I have no religious or ideological basis grounding me to the position that they aren't.
you're wrong about the whole female and woman are synonymous... female is universally defined, even in the trades such as plumbing, as the part of a union where another part fits into... the male would be the part that fits into the female part, forming a union... go to any hardware store and you will see "male" and "female"...those descriptors aren't saying one of for boys and one of for girls
rearrange your 1's and 0's
He's not wrong, he's just lying. There's no way he doesn't know that the actual answer to the question is "Adult human female" and not just "female", yet he keeps pretending it's the latter and not the former.
He's strawmanning the shit out of this. I would agree that if the answer was just "female" that wouldn't be correct since it would include beings like female cats, female dogs etc etc, but it's not. It's "Adult human female".
Yet Destiny lies by pretending it's just "female" just so he can grandstand with his whole "wow! tautological!".
Male female connector naming convention are as arbitrary as the terms male female. We could have named them A B and it would still work
@@Mant111 no? the reason he says its circular is because it's no more clear what a female is than a woman. you don't look at someone's chromosomes to check lol.
@@Mant111you're fighting ghosts, when destiny says female he's obviously refering to human female. That's why he didn't say any of that dumb shit like ohh cats are female to. He criticized the lack of clarity between the word woman and the word female. Listen next time.
@@Jankyito I did, you're wrong.
I've never seen someone defend a weird position for an hour because they wont accept the answer is simple.
What is the simple answer?
@@senatordodo4240A woman is a an adult human with XX chromosomes(female).
@@stakahz4513 how did people know to refer to a woman as a woman before they understood the concept of what a "female" is?
@@senatordodo4240 If you have a penis you are a man, if you have a vagina you are a women is typically how it would have gone down. Or you can look at any of the other 100 features that differentiate them. You don’t need to have an understanding of chromosomes to make that observation. The genitals or masculine/feminine physical features you present are still ultimately dependent on your chromosomes. That’s why when someone transitions into a woman they are ultimately trying to replicate the natural form of someone with XX chromosomes, whether they even know it or not.
@stakahz4513 OK so a person can identify a woman without looking at a woman's chromosomes.
So chromosomes arent actually necessary in the normal persons definition of woman. In fact a person can identify a woman in a single glance in miliseconds.
A person has no ability to look at a womans chromosomes or whether they have a vagina. But they can still identify a woman in a single glance.
And if a man is small and more feminine looking and puts on womans clothes a person can mistake him for a woman, BUT the man does not become a woman just because a person percieves him as such.
Hold on. A woman exists as a concept with features like xx chromosomes but that is not the definition of woman most people are using.
People can just tell on a glance. So what if the definition of woman people use is not the same as the actual definition of woman.
So there is a concept in peoples mind of what a woman is and then there is what a woman actually is(xx chromosomes)
So hypothetically(for the sake of the argument) lets say we named the concept of what a woman or man is in peoples minds as "gender" and what if we named the actual definition of woman as "sex".
Do you understand?
- Peterson, do you believe in God?
- Destiny, what is a woman?
(sorry, I'm not a native speaker and I don't know English, but I think Destiny's answer about women is like answering Peterson about God: "What do you mean? Do you want to know which team I'm on?)
As much as I love Dr. Peterson, this is extremely accurate
Very accurate
Wtf is this comment section 💀
a lot of right of centre people discovering that destiny actually doesn’t agree with them on everything
@@blondeenosauce9935 tbf destinys' arguments in this video are FUCKING DOGSHIT lmao the "waht is a woman" argument is moronic but destiny's reasoning and explanations in this video are legit fucking retarded
Yeah. I was about to say these comments are actually cancer. 🫠
I blame the redpill and post Oct 7 waves... Don't get me wrong, the Finklestein/Benny Morris/Israel trip are still the best content we've ever had. But the community has turned into dogwater for the past few months. I smell a purge incoming. Maybe after the next US elections? :copium:
Everyone realizing women are just sandwhich makers nothing more nothing less, finally some sense in DGG
Removing body parts don’t make you the opposite sex
Did you come up with that all on your own?
@@KsandrPanndo you borrow all your opinions from other people? How is coming up with something yourself negative in any way?
@@sentinals4440 he was being sarcastic I believe...
@@DootyDuck if you say so... I just can't see it, maybe it went over my head or something idk
you're right, you don't have to remove body parts to become the opposite sex =)
The “what is a woman” question is used to determine whether someone believes that gender can be absolutely defined as opposed to being some obscure concept.
A woman is an adult human female. You aren’t saying that trans people are adult human females, you are just trying to redefine what woman means to society
Destiny seething about the what is a woman question is peak cope. The whole point of the question is that transgender ideology is reliant on taking basic concepts and making them convoluted because the underlying premises can't be derived from pure logic or observation. Is sex the best descriptor for womanhood? No, but it's something. The trans-position is reliant on simultaneously undermining and reaffirming traditional definitions of gender and that's shown when someone has to answer what a woman is. Destiny yapping about how complex language is while completely missing this only proves the point.
@@Alibastard807 exactly, you can actually see how convoluted the language is by Destiny’s own strategy here. He’s obfuscating concepts, which previously he’s argued are obvious. He talks about the transgender sports debate or Vaush’s “aqua” quote as if he can clearly identify boys/girls and the way they grow, but now suddenly saying “female” to help define women is circular and language is muddled and impossible to pin down? The “using female to define woman is circular” point is actually sort of ironic because it assumes the traditional definition of woman, in that it’s essentially the same as biological sex and is synonymous with “woman.”
Destiny here sounds like Jordan Peterson when he’s asked if he’s a Christian lol
No, the trans position is reliant on people being so stupid, or scared of getting cancelled, that they would agree with OBVIOUS BS!
I don’t know what a woman is , but I know destiny is a woman’s name
It’s kinda ironic how (strongly) destiny criticizes Jordan Peterson for turning simple concepts into complicated ones, yet he does the same thing when he is asked what a „women“ is. No brother, it’s absolutely not complicated, YOU made it complicated, everybody exactly understands what is meant when those words are uttered
This is just unnecessarily overthinking already „sophisticated“ thoughts, if you go down that rabbit hole you could start to question every f*ing word because language is so complex, but where would that lead us?
32:50 Destiny, you are literally acting like Vaush in his aqua debate against that professor guy. Words, (such as "woman" or "sex" or "gravity" or "genocide" refer to real physically existing things that are there regardless of how we describe them, or what words we use to name them, what that guy in your chat said was saying is that there are material differences between what we categorize as "the two sexes", and these are real regardless of how humans call it, he is not saying that dogs know that there are female dogs and want to have sex them in order to make little dogggies, he is saying that a certain kind of dogs get horny for a diferent kind of dogs due to hormonal reasons, this happens regardless of whether humans exist or not, it just so happens that we humans call the dogs who penetrate "males" and the ones who are penetrated "females," It might be the case that all humans died one day, thiswould not change how these dogs are. There is a difference between "male," the word we use to talk about… well, males, and MALES, the physically existing creatures, ok? It's like how "Male" has four letters, but MALE has no letters, male is not a thing that can have letters, male is just a certain type of organism. So the issue is that we have this word "woman," and we're asking "what is it describing in the actual material world?" People think it describes females of the human species, if yo have a different idea you must elaborate and explain why this definition you are proposing is better
Holly crap , he really is. LOL
Destiny is not talking about changing the definition, he is talking about how the definition currently is.
If i walk down the street and see a human with specific features, traits and characteristics, im going to say "hey, look at that woman over there" despite not being able to see their genitalia or their chromosomes. How do i know that its a "woman" without knowing that its an "adult human female"?
This simple test shows that the definition "adult human female" does not cover all the ways that we (all of us included as a people with a common language) use the word "woman".
This is NOT changing the definition, this is how we use the word today, all of us.
@@senatordodo4240
Incorrect, Destiney is infact talking about changing the definition. See below.
If I walk down the street and see 'a cat that looks like a dog', I'm going to say 'hey look at that dog over there'. How do i know that its a 'dog' without knowing that its a member of species "Canis Lupus Familiaris"?
This simple example shows that you have committed an equivocation fallacy by conflating 'readily observable attributes used to INFER a classification' with 'the actual definition of the classification that is based on genetics (which arnt readily observable)'.
Your position DOES attempt to change the definition because based on the current definition if you identify 'a cat that looks like a dog as a dog' or a 'a man[male] that looks like a woman[female] as a woman' then you are simply mistaken.
@@user-ui5bo5um7n if tomorrow everyone started calling things that traditionally were thought of as cats "dogs", then our classification would change the names.
The cats wont literally become the same as dogs, our definitions would just update with our use of words.
There are plenty of animals that are commonly referred to with names despite not belong to the group that name belongs to.
Crabs are a very common example of this, most things we call "crabs" arent actually part of the crab family.
Again, that doesnt literally make them a part of that group, they just have a bunch of characteristics that we associate with crabs so we call them crabs.
Right now, we often use "woman" to describe people without actually knowing what group they are a part of. That DOESNT literally make them the exact same as what we traditionally think of as women, we still refer to them as such though therefor our definition includes that.
Definitions are just attempts to keep up with how we use language
@@senatordodo4240
*"if tomorrow everyone started calling things that traditionally were thought of as cats 'dogs', then our classification would change the names. "*
- The fact word definitions CAN change organically over time does not provide a logical basis for disregarding the meaning those words DO have in the present.
*"There are plenty of animals that are commonly referred to with names despite not belong to the group that name belongs to. "*
- What you are describing here are DIFFERING CONTEXTUAL USAGES of a given word. eg. Biologists may have a SPECIALIZED DEFINITION of the word 'dog' that is used within the SPECIALIZED CONTEXT OF biological classification to refer to any Canine, however the word 'dog' when used within a colloquial context [a normal every day context] typically refers to domestic dogs (Canis Lupus familiaris).
- This has no relevance to the word woman because in the case of the word 'woman', the biological definition and colloquial definition are exactly the same ; adult human female. It also does not justify having non-cogent definitions that lack logical consistency. 🙂
*"Right now, we often use 'woman' to describe people without actually knowing what group they are a part of. "*
- What you are describing is the usage of readily observable characteristics to INFER a classification.
- I reiterate: based on the current definition if you identify 'a cat that looks like a dog as a dog' or a 'a man[male] that looks like a woman[female] as a woman' then you are simply mistaken.
*"Definitions are just attempts to keep up with how we use language"*
- The attempts to redefine the word woman and deny it's contingency on biological-sex are not an organic change that has occurred over time. It's an ideologically motivated, far-left partisan talking-point that has come to prominence within the last 15 years.
Am I dumb or is Destiny doing exactly what he criticizes Jordan Peterson for doing when Peterson is asked if he believes in God? I actually agree with Destiny, but it seems like a change in tone from when he listens to Peterson argue that it's not clear what is meant by "God".
That’s dead on- he literally hates Jordan for constantly trying to evade making definitive statements by getting stuck in the weeds defining terms in weird ways when everyone intuitively would kno what those words mean
@@Rowe104 It seems like an even worse example too because the idea of God is so loaded with millennia of different connotations in different cultures.
When he's on the HodgeTwins and says "that's a really hard question" it is so close to Jordan Peterson with Cosmic Skeptic that it's comical.
the former
@@PixelPenguin77 Maybe both?
No, it shows you're listening very well
Destiny is confused. The information required to recognize an instance of a type need not be the information that defines the type. We can define woman as a person with XX chromosomes while acknowledging that the information we use to recognize instances of the type "Woman" is something like long hair, breasts etc. There's no contradiction with this model of how we use language.
Agreed. If a man dressed as a cop and carried a fake badge around. Just because people think and call him an officer, even if he isn't actually one, doesn't mean the definition of an officer is wrong. It just means he presents himself as what we would assume an officer would present themselves as
You are confused.
This is not how language works in any way shape or form.
You don't start out with a rigid definition and the approach it in real world usage with shorthands.
It's literally the other way around. You use terms as shorthands for concepts all the time and we retroactively try and find some kind of definition for these concepts, by observing the usage.
This is way the definition if "literally" have changed for example, because the usage changed. This is how any new word finds it's way into the dictionaries. We use it and retroactively try to build the definitions from there.
So the question now is, what you are actually saying, if you say "this is a woman"?
What is the information you are trying to communicate? Don't tell me you are literally ONLY talking about chromosomes and that it would be the EXACT same sentence if you said "this person has XX-chromosomes".
These are different sentences and are understood extremely different in social settings .
If you say "Don't act like a woman", what are you saying? Are you telling someone they shouldn't act like they have a specific set of chromosomes, or is there a whole set of things attached to the category "woman"?
@@maxwellsdemon10 I didn't claim that language worked by defining words first and then using them to interface with the world. My only claim was that Destiny is not acknowledging a distinction between the information required to recognize an instance of a type versus the information that defines the type. He claimed that Ben slipping up and calling someone "her" is evidence that Ben defines a woman as someone who has long hair, breasts, etc. When it doesn't necessarily imply that. It only implies that he uses that information to recognize instances of the type "Woman" but he can explicitly define woman as something more rigid. There's no contradiction.
@@parse.thoughtspace there is a contradiction though.
His USAGE of the word is what is important, because it determines the definition.
What do you believe happened in this clip? Do you think Ben Shapiro had a moment, where he confused the chromosomes of the person he was talking about, or did the person he was talking about simply fit his mental image of a woman so well, that he had to make an effort to use different pronouns?
He USES the word woman to refer to a person with long hair, breats, etc.
This is his mental image of a woman, the way he actually uses the word and it shows.
That's why I don't think the information we use to recognise something and the information that defines it are different at all.
The definition comes directly from the usage and the mental image we have, which is simply the thing we use to recognise them.
If we found out tomorrow, that chromosomes don't in fact exist, my mental image of a woman wouldn't change one bit and neither would Ben Shapiros. It would however change if the usage would change and the characteristics we use to determine them.
@@maxwellsdemon10 You aren't following what is being said. I'll debate you in a discord voice chat if you're willing and agree to let me record it
"Adult human female" is not a bad definition and it's not tautological. There are females of other species, there are female dogs, female whales, female cats whatever, but the name we give to human females who are also adults is "women." Why do you think that we haven't thought about this issue before? Maybe we have and we just came to the conclusion that "adult human female" is the only defintion that works.
The mental gymnastics people perform on this subject will never cease to amaze me.
If you cannot provide a cogent and logically consistent definition of the word woman.
Then you have no business talking about womens issues.
define a table
@@dylane1891 A surface which is recognized by humans to be a place used to place things. Though if you would rather go all the way with the philosophy of words, we could say that any definition leads to a vicious circle because all words are defined by words that are defined by words. Calling a tree a tree isn't correct because the reality of what a tree is could never be captured by words, in which case any attempt at communication is doomed including this one.
edit: I just wanted to add that it's potentially possible to create a language that would allow us to communicate pattern recognition more effectively than English. English is impossibly caught up with Catholic views of the world where everything is seen as individual things crafted by a creator, and not patterns of events. In Physics terms, English thinks the world is particles, but a language like Chinese sees it more as waves.
@@Puzzlesocks So firstly according to your definition a shelf is a table.
And secondly, i'm not trying to say that definitions are useless. But when someone uses phrases like ''if you cant define woman you shouldn't talk about woman's issues'' in this context, it shows a misunderstanding on how, we as humans, use words and concepts. That's why the table question is good. A table is a simple enough thing to know one when we see one, but we can't find a definition that doesn't lead to ridiculous conclusions for it. Witch helps to show that the 'definition' discourse around this topic is just dumb.
@@dylane1891 Shelf is a table but on a wall mf you tried to do something here
@@spinosaurusstriker You just said a table BUT on a wall (implying a table wouldn't be on a wall by definition) witch makes a shelf witch IS on a wall NOT a table. do you not hear yourself? also if someone tells me to go to eat at the table and I start to eat from a fucking shelf, do you think I understood the meaning of the word there? yall are too funny
If you went back in time and asked for water, but they didnt know water was H2O would they not know what you were asking for? Saying that ancient people wouldn't know what a woman was because they didnt know what chromosomes were is ridiculous.
yes exactly, thats why defining it as "adult human female" or "H20" doesnt actually encompass everything we think of when we say "water" or "woman" and people have been using the words without that definition for centuries
@@senatordodo4240 When people used woman in the past, they were referring to adult human females, even if they didn’t know about gametes. They observed that mammals had two reproductive classes and one type gave birth, they understood this of humans as well as cows and chickens.
@@jimgold2550 "Females" often also were seen and referred to as "women" but that wasnt because they could see the vagina or knew of the other person's ability to reproduce but rather they saw a schema of different aspects that together meant "woman"
@@senatordodo4240 Right, because we’re able to accurately tell what sex people are usually based off their traits. Similarly we can tell whether an animal is an elephant or an ant based off their appearance, even if we don’t analyse their DNA.
@@jimgold2550 Exactly, thats why "woman" as purely the biological definition isnt satisfactory
"Matt Walsh's expertise on trans issue" 🤣🤣
The topic of what a man or women is, isn't complicated. Invoking a thought when we say these words, is actuslly straight forward. Everyone knows what you mean when you ask what a women is. This doesn't take away from how complicated language is at all. If someone asks you what a dog is, you know exactly what they mean when they say dog or human. It's categorization for a reason.
Also admoralities from the average or general is an exception for a reason which we account for in categorization. A human has 10 fingers regardless if someone has lost a finger or someone is born with more or less. The statement that humans have 10 fingers is true regardless of the abnormality of exceptions to the rule. Human females can give birth to other humans. Human male can impregnate a human female. Can use chromosomes, can use private parts, csn use functional breeding ability. Doesn't matter. We know what a women and a man is. Once again exceptions to the rule don't overrule the rule.
0:40 I mean like right here in the intro… do you think people who argue it that way, “Trans people don’t exist”last for very long on a platform? I feel like that’s a reason to not use that angle, and I wouldn’t even blame them. My friend you got banned for arguing that trans woman and cis women aren’t the same in sports.
Most conservative media has that opinion tho and a lot are not banned from youtube. As long as you arent being hateful
@@mancho1691the whole problem is that "being hateful" is an extremely subjective concept
yeah, I feel like the question is not so much about them not existing, as it is about the fact that the pre-fix is necessary context in almost all situations. A "cis-woman" and a "t-woman" are not the exact same thing and that context matters. They want to drop the qualifier as a whole, or only add it for the cis ones. Which is not gucci.
No one says that trans people don't exist though, that's a strawman argument. Clearly they do exist, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them, left OR right.
The issue is: what do they exist as? Conservatives would say that they exist as men who identify as women, meaning adult human males who identify as adult human females.
The "don't exist" is in relation not existing as adult human females, which is, without doubt, correct.
@@roymarshall_ Exactly. And it’s a problem to me imo. I don’t like that attacking one political side is way way more likely to get you labeled as hateful. It’s troubling regardless of which side you’re on if you believe in free speech.
Destiny really letting out his inner Vaush with this stupid "What is a woman" argument. Seemed like you could recognize the difference between man and woman pretty easily when debating about trans sports but when trying to correct right wingers on trans issues, all that goes out the window
Actually not at all. In the trans sports debate, it’s about wether they experienced puberty as a boy or a girl. If a boy were to transition at the age of 9 (hypothetically) it would most likely make sense to let the resulting girl play in woman’s sports in the future. It’s pretty easy actually
@@sepro5135 None of that is true at all, what are you talking about? lol there's no amount of puberty blockers or hormones that dumb down skeletal differences between males and females. You're doing the neil degrasse tyson pseudoscience approach to trans sports. There is no reality where trans women are on the same playing field as females. And there sure as hell isn't a reality where we're allowing children to medically transition that early.
I say this as a BIPOC, bi, trans-ally. Do more research into this before spreading misinformation.
If you thought that Destiny's argument with the trans sports stuff was that trans women would be men, your listening comprehension skills must be on the level of a toddler.
@@sepro5135 the point is that he seemed to recognize that there are differences between the two and would even make fun of Vaush's "There's no such thing as water, in Mexico it's called aqua" argument but now he's acting like it's super complicated and hard to define. I don't usually see Destiny as a contrarian like alot of his critics claim he is but this time definitely felt like a contrarian moment to me. When he's arguing with leftists "Of course we can figure out what is a woman and what's a man and Neo pronouns are stupid" but when he's arguing with right wingers "well what is a woman? What's even a chair?" which again sounds like "water is aqua" to me
@@sepro5135 Not really though, even transitioning at 9 doesn't remove all the advantages males have over females
Okay, am i missing something, how can Destiny not see that optically he just sounds insane? if someone asks you what is a chair, you go, "something with legs for you to sit on", and if they want to get more specific then you can dig deeper. What would Destiny's response be to "what is a chair?", well, it would be "Do you even REALISE what a complicated question you just ASKED? Are you even aware of how LANGUAGE works, how CONTEXT shapes MEANINGS and DEFINITIONS" He always says "That's not how language works" and yet he sounds like a broken Chat-GPT when someone asks him a simple question. I understand that conservatives have motives when they ask these questions, and it can be frustrating to deal with that, but you gotta give them a straight answer, or else they won't take you seriously. You can just give them a straight answer like "there are cis women and trans women. cis women are adult females and trans women are adult males that identify as adult females" or something along those lines, and if they start digging you can THEN pull out your philosophy. But you immediately loading them with all that bullshit, in my opinion, makes you look optically insane.
I think he himself doesn't even believe what he's saying.
The reason why he's dancing around this question is because, to some extent, he probably believes that he still needs to cater to his more liberal audiences in order to avoid being branded as a "right winger". Steven is certainly not a dumb person, but when you have ideological weak spots - they can make anyone sounds like an insane person.
American brainrot is so contagious, people are unironically asking "what is a female" and arguing that if you cannot give a perfect definition for something, then you cannot define anything, thus there is no difference between men and women.
I really feel sorry for people that purposefully obfuscate and complicate extremely easy question, so they can jerk themselves off as being some kind of "intellectuals" or more enlightened from the rest.
@@jadessalazard1) Tons of people misuse the word "projection" online, but your first sentence is an example of actual projection
2) People can disagree with you and genuinely hold those beliefs. Your worldview is not as self-evidently true as you feel like it is
3) Correct, this is a philosophical dilemma that people have been talking about for decades. It used to be sandboxed to the halls of academia but has since become more mainstream as trans issues have entered the zeitgeist
4) Again, your worldview is not so obviously correct that the people who disagree with it are "obfuscating" or "jerking themselves off". The philosophy of language is a complicated topic. Asking someone "what is a woman" opens the door to a broader discussion about this subject
@@ghostwitch644
2) I dont have issues with people disagreeing with me. Sex is absolutely self-evidently true, massively backed by science for centuries. There is only male and female. The fact that someone is asking "well , heh, what is a female?" is, again, poor attempt to muddy the waters by obfuscating. There is nothing deep to be explored here. Its simple as that.
You, looking to find deeper meaning below the surface, so you can support your narrative, is a "you" problem. Sorry.
2. I dont see how it is not still sandboxed because of trans people. People believing themselves to be the other sex/gender, doesn't change reality in any way. Believe what you want, but don't expect us to conform you just so you can feel validated.
3. I am not saying that because people are disagreeing with me. It is so obviously self-jerking when you are unironically asking "well what is a female" and "have you taken philosophy classes" when the topic of discussion is biological sex.
Asking what is a woman is an absurdly easy answer - its an adult human female.
Again, you are free to believe it is not, but you're completely disregarding basic biology and what have been observed by nature for god knows how long.
The chatter that says “categories of sex exist in animals outside of human understanding” and implying this proves the argument about trans people is just wrong and shows they don’t understand how diverse animals are. All animals don’t have this rigid male and female relationship like we do. Are hyena’s transgender? The females have a “fake” or “pseudo scrotum” are they what you would call transgender? If a male dog humps another male dog, is that dog just gay? What about animals that change their gender depending on circumstances? This exists… It’s simply an argument from ignorance.
Does "minor" or "adult" exist outside of human understanding? So by that argument pedophile is just a made up word because you cant define it without using the arbitrary man made word "age". Also your lack of understanding of animal nature is hillarious, if you think dogs humping each other is only or even mostly sexual you are very uninformed.
You realize destiny has not thought seriously about this for 5 minutes when he says woman is synonymous with female and female can't be explained.
Maybe you just have brain damage but Destiny doesnt say Female is undefinable, he says it just brings you to the exact same question you started with.
A woman is a female. “What is a female?” Well it’s a woman. Circular reasoning lol
@@procrastinatingpuma Except it literally doesn't because female is NOT synonymous with Woman. There are female fish, we don't call those women.
@@Galkatokkyou are wrong in the most funny way.
@@pmq123 Go ahead and explain.
I’m gonna push back a bit on the woman = female argument being tautological. It’s not. Because you can define the words adult, human, and female. So it’s not tautological.
define female... and how could you identify a woman without testing her chromosomes?
@@justsomedude77 A female is “denoting the sex that CAN bear offspring/produces ova to be fertilized by male gametes”. We have been able to identify women without “testing” their chromosomes. I’m not making the argument about chromosomes. Though they are a part of the human genome sex.
@@Malik_Maverickso a woman that is infertile from birth is a different sex? As she does not have the potential to bear children. how does that process of identification work? We do not know someone is a woman, we assume they are a woman based off secondary sexual characteristics and societal expectations of what a woman ought to do.
@@justsomedude77sex isn’t defined by chromosomes, it’s defined by proclivity to produce gamete. How do you think we recognise that some bovines are cows and some are bulls, ie female and male? We do the same with humans.
@@justsomedude77Nobody ever assumes someone is a woman based off what women do. If that were the case we’d consider gay men or sissies women
Humans have 10 fingers but we don’t say otherwise simply because some humans are missing some
Just how we say women bare children despite there being some that cant.
We ONLY identify women from their biological characteristics. If you were to freeze a naked woman and put her in a museum you wouldnt go “Maybe she acted and presented as a man” you’d assume its a woman based off her biological features
We don’t need chromosomes to figure this out because we do it all the time
I actually disagree heavily with Destiny on this one. Definitions of words are descriptive, not prescriptive, which is why they are almost universally accurate across cultural barriers.
The argument that really seems weak to me is where he claims that, without humans, the concept of [insert any word] wouldn't exist. Because the fact that a word is descriptive of the properties of a thing that exists, those properties will still exist regardless of a human's interaction with it. Perhaps the literal word we use to describe those properties wouldn't exist any longer, but the descriptive properties of that objective piece of matter will still exist. If a tree falls down in the woods with nobody to hear it, the tree still fell down, it's just that nobody saw it. It doesn't mean that the tree doesn't exist.
It feels to me more that Destiny here is trying everything he can to make this conservative point seem stupid and with no philosophical backing, but his arguments are so poor that I can't even begin to try backing him up on this one.
People accidentally saying “she” is a poor argument. We often suspend belief in film, drama, song, role playing, etc, etc… doesn’t mean they’re actually that thing.
No fancy dress party ever:
“First place is the little boy pretending to be a fireman but is not a real fireman, second place is the girl that’s really a little girl but is pretending to be Dracula and third…”
They arent suspending their belief though, they are actively trying to reinforce their belief when they try to misgender people and still fail because the traits and characteristics of people flip enough switches to make them think "woman"
Well, no one claims a trans formal is biologically female, which is I presume what you mean by “actually that thing.” They’re just saying we should put then in the same category as female unless we are in a context where biological sex is relevant.
Honestly don’t know how people watch this and don't acknowledge that having rigid definitions isn’t exactly translatable in daily life. We look for overall easy features that personally represents the word we use. That’s why we have people who can use the same words but have different meanings behind it and that’s how conservative influencers can still call a trans women a she by accident while knowing they are biologically a male. Words go beyond rigid text book definitions when people use them in daily life.
They're not rigid, they adhere to reality. Disassociating yourself from reality isn't being "less rigid", it's taking the wacko route.
If that trans woman passes enough for my brain to trick me that this person is a biological women then I will call that person she. Even if I know they are trans my brain will still trick me and I will say she by accident. Like Ben Shapiro did in that convo with Joe Rogan. Yet that person really is not a woman, a real woman no matter how many hormones or surgeries they will get unfortunately.
@@Mant111facts
I agree words can elude to the reality of what we see or want to communicate but nothing that you said goes against any of my points because what we see is a singular viewpoint. To adhere to reality is to acknowledge words are used to represent a common sense/ experience and is therefore flexible, for when the world changes we as people and our views change with it and our language changes alongside us as a result, irrelevant of how many individual disagree. That’s why either new words/ phrases are created or old words gain new meaning while losing or preserving its old meaning. That’s reality.
@@ace-daniel4240 No, reality is reality, you're describing sociology. If the whole world decided that a turd is a rose and a rose is a turd, no turd nor rose would change in the process.
The “what is a table?” argument is dumb to me because he ignores that we actually DO have strict definitions when it comes to biology. “What is your liver, what is your pancreas, what is your heart?” are much better comparisons and have clear, strict definitions.
True. Someone else in this comment section said the same thing "so what's a chair then?" If anything, it discredits that argument because while there are many types of chairs, an armchair and a desk chair are still chairs. So to answer a question nobody asked, chairs have one gender. Case closed lol. 🤓
Gender isn’t a biological concept, it’s a social concept
@samanthasmith733 define a chair then, go ahead.
But that’s not how the word is used. You could say, oh it’s XX chromosome, but that’s not what people refer to when they use it.
Plus even with a heart it can get complicated if you’re trying to be obtuse, like people do with the woman argument. Is a model heart a heart? Is an artificial heart a heart? Is a pump a heart?
It's a good example but we have such rigid defined characteristics associates with lungs, heart, or pancreas. But if I drew this symbol you'd say that's a heart ❤️ which kinda pokes a hole in your argument. But if I showed someone whose never seen one a liver or two they could recognize livers constantly. If I show someone whose never seen a woman two women there's tons of women they wouldn't know how to categorize without more factors than adult human female unless we take blood from every one of them.
"Universal concepts of things don't exist outside of human understanding." - Destiny out here refuting the Platonic ideal
BIG Destiny L here. This sounds like Vaush’s aqua nonsense.
Also Female is well defined in biology, there’s nothing vague about that definition. If we were to communicate telepathically without languages, we all know exactly the idea we’re communicating when referring to women. Forget about all the sophistry and focus on the concept being referred to.
Just like how water aka H2O existed way before language and way before we could create sounds with our mouths to say it. The idea being expressed already existed, just like the idea being expressed by the words “adult human female” exist even without language. THAT idea is what we mean by Woman
Destiny breaking out the Vaush defence. Agua
I dont think you need 50 mins to rationalize what is a woman
Socially liberal people do 😂 it’s funny
What is a woman? I dunno, but having the name Destiny certainly makes you one
When I dress up as Superman on Halloween I’m a real superhero fighting crime.
Superman is a made up story. Women actually exist. Crazy to grasp for those threatened by people just existing.
@@kims4333 Your guru destiny is arguing that woman is also a made up story.
@@Shad0wack You think a woman is "a made up story"? I rest my case.
@@kims4333 Youre not very bright
@@kims4333 *"Superman is a made up story. Women actually exist"*
- What relevance does that have to the analogy?
If I said 'my coffee cup was blue like the sky' and you responded by saying 'no the sky isnt ceramic' it would be equally as braindead as your current response.
"adult human female" is not a tautology. "female" is the genus of "woman", not a synonym. It's a proper definition with genus and differentia.
"Female" refers to living beings in general, plants too. "Woman" is only for humans. You can discuss the proper definition of "Female" but really that's a question for biologists, they are generally responsible for classifying living things.
When the word gender is used in this way, it is synonymous with personality, or "personality qualities generally associated with a certain sex".
"They slipped up and used the wrong pronoun because deep down they know..." is such a shallow argument. The prospect of an imitation being compelling does not make you the actual thing you are imitating. Someone mistaking Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder as an actual black person obviously does not make him an actual african american, also it doesn't surprise me that your brain would slip up and use the pronoun in question when said pronoun is repeatedly said to you, your brain automatically fills in gaps when you are making sentences (especially on the spot) all the time.
Instead of playing unnecessary word games and making yourself look stupid to normal people when you give a frankly bad answer to the WIAW question, just own that we can't change biology, but because of their mental health you should be courteous, it's really just that simple.
You don't sacrifice reality to reinforce someone's self delusion. That's why we now have to deal with issues in sports, prisons, bathrooms etc.
Do you have any examples of someone repeatedly making a similar error? I've actually never heard an instance of anyone confusing Robert Downey Jr as a black person, so I assume you're just using that as a hypothetical. But do you have any comparable examples?
Do you question every single woman you meet if they're secretly a passing transwoman, or do you just assume they're probably female? How do you know every unknown black actor isn't secretly just a white guy in black face; Tropic Thunder was pretty convincing and if you didn't know who Robert Downey Jr was or see the credits then how would you know? Honestly the biggest question I have for you though is what do you think transwomen transition for, cause it's not because they literally think they are a biological women, they know they are biologically male lol
It's always telling that when the conversation is about language and how we use it, people like you always say "unnecessary word games" completely missing the point. If something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If we've advanced enough as a species to make such a transition, the same concept applies.
The only reason why you think it's a shallow argument is because your level of thinking is shallow to begin with, as you're the type of person to call a pond shallow, just because you can't see the bottom, nor are humble enough to admit that you're just out of your depth.
You wouldnt slip up if it was as simple, straightforward and obvious as youd think.
And btw, being "african american" is a concept as well. Like what, how does your ancestors coming 200 years ago from africa has to change anything? You see how made up that social concept is, if just using paint to change your skin color could confuse someone over that.
I asked chatGPT to make a definition for table that includes all tables and doesn't include anything that isn't a table, and I think it did pretty well actually. It was long winded and I'm sure the average person couldn't answer it, but I was surprised.
Post it up
I want to see it.
Just to be clear, I never said it was a perfect answer:
A flat, horizontal surface, typically supported by one or more legs or a central pedestal, designed for placing objects, carrying out tasks, or seating individuals, often used in various contexts such as dining, working, or displaying items.
I also had to ask it again because I had the original conversation back whenever Destiny debated those twins.
@@coreyhughes1456 this is the point though. Even this extremely long answer is not perfect and doesn't account for all tables. "flat" some tables are not fully flat, or even not flat at all and yet are still obviously a table. Even in the definition itself it says "typically supported by..." indicating that some tables have different criteria when it comes to what supports them yet they are still a table.
if your definition has to include something like "typically", then that means that there are times when that thing isn't always like the definition, yet it is still that thing.
Typically a woman has XX chromosomes, has a vagina and boobs and has the capacity of giving birth, typically having a softer voice and bla bla bla. Yet obviously not all woman are like that. Yet we still call them a woman. So why wouldn't we include a trans woman into that woman definition? After HRT they very likely have boobs, after voice therapy/surgery their voice changes. Their chromosomes don't change to XX but that doesn't stop them from being a woman. Sure they can't give birth but that still doesn't stop them from being a woman either.
I generally agree with Destinys stance on this topic, but when you start using the argument of "words are just made up and don't mean anything", it makes your argument look extremely weak. I actually remember Destiny reviewing a Jordan Peterson interview where Peterson used almost the exact same argument (for a different topic) and Destiny tore him apart for it. I'd love to see him come up with a more concrete argument that doesn't involve obfuscating language. To clarify, he starts saying "these categories don't exist outside of human understanding". The problem being that this entire discourse exists within the scope of human understanding and categorization through language (as do most discourses).
Most (if not all) words, have a basic concrete definition and then a surrounding web of underlying ideas. This basic definition is fundamental to our ability to communicate, especially outside of our social/ideological circles, and I think it's important that these definitions are (mostly) agreed upon.
Well we could use the same justification to say pedophiles did nothing wrong. The definition of an adult in the US is "A human who lived on earth to see it orbit around the sun ~18 times". So if the word woman is made up, surely so is the word adult. I agree its a incredibly dumb argument, we take scientific findings and tie words to them that defines their meaning. Woman=XX chromosomes Man=XY chromosomes. If anything the term "adult" is far more arbitrary and stupid.
@@Mas-ij3ti Exactly. Almost every argument EVER relies on the widely agreed upon definitions of words and their specificity.
Here's my observation: There are men, there are women, there are trans-men and there are trans-women. Each of these is different and we can all identify the different categories even if there are times when we don't know where to situate people when we see them. Acknowledging this would help us to decide how we should intelligently segregate for sports. changing rooms etc.
I feel like I have seen this before. Or are we just looping?
Looping because Adam Sosnik brought it up 2 weeks ago. AFAIK Tiny didn't cover it before the Israel trip.
this was livestreamed yesterday? what do you mean by looping
@@ssssantos304 Guessing they mean rehashing the Hodge Twins question and answer for the third time.
It’s funny he knew what a woman was when he was talking about being bisexual.
You can intuitively know what something is without being able to define it precisely. Like Destiny said, language comes from experience, not the other way around. Without the experience to attach to the word, it is just gibberish.
@@viysnjor4811 Further though, is that it can't be comprehended as a language without common experience. As in I could never explain what "Red" is to a blind person. Without the common experience the word will always remain gibberish. If you use a personal definition for your gender, what you are actually doing is speaking gibberish, but because they use enough common words between the definitions then confusion arises. If I started calling every car a horse, people might be able to learn what I am referring to, but as the Zen saying goes, I would be raising waves when no wind is blowing.
@@viysnjor4811 Really? What experience do you have with Dark Matter? I’ll wait. Destiny is an idiot that wants to skirt reality by pretending you can not define things. It is funny he knows he has a son…. A boy. Pretending you do not know what a woman is to satisfy the wokes is just dishonest. Let me help you. Woman= adult, human, female…….Simple, age, sex and species all in one word.
@@Puzzlesocks And yet somehow cultures that have never met all over the world managed to figure it out, even before languages, and even animals figure it out…..amazing 🙄
The problem with Destiny's definition is it's primarily reliant on intuition and first impressions. What if the transwoman doesn't pass though? Does that validate everyone's impression of them as not a woman. And it's really frustrating to hear Destiny talk in this because you can still have the position of "Transwomen are women" without saying "There's no universal law that applies to anything ever". Like yes you can give a universal definition for a tree. And it's weird to hear Destiny talk about it this way because I remember he criticized Vaush for the same thing when Vaush was debating the Agua Professor.
"A woman is an adult human female" is not tautological because other species have females. An adult female horse is not a woman, it's a mare. Male and female are anisogamous reproductive strategies. The sex class a gonochoric, anisogamous organism belongs to depends on its reproductive anatomy relating to large or small gametes. Chromosomes aren't sexes, genes on chromosomes are sex determining mechanisms in some but not all species. Typically in humans XX leads to female development and XY leads to male, but not always. Due to genetic mutations/deletions/translocations... XY females can develop and XX males can develop.
There were 42,000 children diagnosed with gender disphoria is 2021 (3x the amount since 2017). Since then, the number of children who have been diagnosed with gender disphoria, and identify as trans is 300,000, over a 7x increase.
2% are on, specifically categorized as, "hormone blockers", 11% of children are on hormone therapy, which might have close to the same effects.
thats 13% of 300,000 (39,000) children who might have detrimental life long effects.
Matt was wrong, but in as little as 4 years, it might not be the case.
I HAVE TO SAY THIS:
Destiny: "why would nature create a category?" *acts belwildered*
Well destiny, before humans were ever here, animals DID categorize other animals. as mates, rivals, prey, and predator, to list just a few. You're acting like without people there to witness and assess the things, that they arent anything. The concept of gravity existed long before man conceptualized it for ourselves. Those concepts are real and have actions, reactions, etc, even if people don't acknowledge them. Yes, i understand youre not saying those don't exist, but we are using words to communicate those real life things. I can't go around calling leaves rocks and expect anyone to either
A) understand what i am talking about
B) take me seriously
C) be understanding when i try to shame them because theyre not holding my same view, and I find that harmful to my emotions (which i might categorize as assault)
The "what is a woman" question is a simile/metaphor to "if you didn't eat breakfast this morning". Yes, dumb people can use both questions, and not grasp them, but that doesn't mean they arent a good way to gauge another person's ability to think logically, before trying to engage in an honest discussion. I don't feel like wasting time with someone that feels emotions are the end all be all. I see them as people who watch too much anime and think that if they just get upset enough, they can go supernova, and everyone around them will just except it, because, main character(syndrome).
Destiny: "who is to distinguish a leaf from a branch"
The people who use the language. that is why this trans issue is such a big deal for so many people. they feel its the deconstruction of our very basis of communication. As a liberal, i think the Left is awful about this. They constantly repurpose words, or use language to incite emotion, to complete goals. Youre making the perfect point for me, who is to say who says what is what, everyone, not the people trying to use peoples way to communicate with others as a weapon against them, while also trying to make them sound like the "better-than-thou" authority. BLM is the epitome of this.
I think more children should be on hormone therapy
Gravity isn’t a good example because its not socially constructed to fit into the human beings way of life. It is considered an “Absolute true”. Something we discover, or learn.
And like most things that get social accepted later on in society like being left handed or being gay first have a huge rise then then plateau out eventually.
@@michaeltaberner4079being left handed didn't have a "huge rise" once it was socially acceptable, there where always the same amount, just some societies forced left handed people to use their right hand.
@@sentinals4440 yeah the same way people don't just become gay...
@@DootyDuck I would disagree there since I have seen it happen, but each person believes what they want since there is no physical proof
It is true that "woman" is defined scientifically, but it also defined socially through roles, culture, and how we precieve them too.
Yup, it’s just like the word parent. That fact that biological parents exist doesn’t mean that adoptive parents can’t exist.
But the social is secondary. Reality first, feelings second.
@@ecta9604 Agreed
@@Mant111 I agree, I'm just explaining both sides.
Men can't perform the most important roles for women, so its all just LARP'ing for that person's benefit, and I find its usually someone who gets a sexual arousal out of all of us LARPing for them, and they're usually in absurd outfits or overtly bimbo-like.. its very tiring.
but hey, they've successfully bullied most Corporations and social media platforms into going along, so, who am I to deny them?I'd just be washed away in the tide of their fury.